New British Philosophy: The interviews edited by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, Routledge, 拢9.99, ISBN 0415243467 Reviewed by Mike Holderness
DO YOU ever wonder what philosophers do, or why? They seem to make such grand claims for the scope of their subject 鈥� as grand as science鈥檚 鈥� but where do they come from?
Why not ask some philosophers? That鈥檚 what Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, editors of The Philosophers鈥� Magazine, did. They interviewed 16 plausibly up-and-coming philosophers working in Britain, starting with the question: why? Many only realised the subject existed when they realised they鈥檇 chosen the wrong degree. Some began with focused youthful enthusiasm for the Big Questions about the nature of existence and knowledge, before encountering actual philosophy and having their views turned around.
Advertisement
And the results are weird stylistic hybrids, chopping between plain speaking and philosophers鈥� urges to talk shop to other philosophers. You may have to glide over clauses like 鈥渢he kind of criticism Kierkegaard makes of the Hegelian tradition as he inherited it鈥�. But if you鈥檙e a zoologist reading about quantum mechanics you probably glide over 鈥渢he Hamiltonian鈥�, no? And, just as one day you may get around to reading up Bill Hamilton鈥檚 use of matrices, you could do worse for intellectual stimulation than read up what Hegel meant by 鈥渢he dialectic鈥�. Later.
What you won鈥檛 get here is much that鈥檚 explicitly about the 鈥減hilosophy of science鈥�. You will get a partial view of the breadth of the subject 鈥減hilosophy鈥� 鈥� from unfashionable subjects such as aesthetics to crunchy stuff right on the border with mathematics. In particular, you鈥檒l get several perspectives on the gulf between 鈥淎nglo-Saxon鈥� philosophy and that which it derides as 鈥渃ontinental鈥�.
The latter group, stereotyped as woolly and 鈥減retentious and portentous鈥� doesn鈥檛 actually exist 鈥� it is simply the 鈥淥ther鈥� that Anglo-Saxon analytic philosophy needs to define itself as a coherent movement.
Analytic philosophy, by contrast, drew dry inspiration from the heroic effort by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead to put mathematics on a complete and consistent logical footing. No one鈥檚 come up with an unwoolly way to deal with the crisp proof by the mathematician Kurt G枚del, back in 1931, that it can鈥檛 be done. And, as the pro-continentals gently point out, the Anglo-Saxon project also self-destructs when confronted by the perennial question: 鈥淲hat do you mean by 鈥榢now鈥�, or by 鈥榶ou鈥�?鈥�
Such thoughts are extremely useful when you come to wonder what scientists do, and why. So do read this, then do that.